The Third Way: A Different View of the Middle East

Dear Readers,

As I recently told everyone here, I have resigned from JVP and so this blog is discontinued. I had re-directed all of you to the blog I sort of maintain at the Talking Points Memo site.

I’m pleased to let you know that I will be continuing The Third Way at my new blog site, mitchellplitnick.com.

I am not going to import all of the subscriptions again, and I have discontinued the TPM e-mail notifications. I hope you will all visit the new blog by clicking here. On the right hand side, just under the picture of Jerusalem at the top, you will see a link you can follow to subscribe to the blog if you wish. Thanks for reading and keeping up with me.

Dear Readers,

Thanks to the many of you who have followed this blog, and those who have commented. As I have now resigned from Jewish Voice for Peace, this blog is closing. I will continue to write analysis and welcome comments at my other blog, at Talking Points Memo Cafe, which you can follow at this link.

When negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians begin to gather steam or, as is the case now, seem to be re-starting, emotions on both sides are stirred by the question of Israel’s “right to exist,” particularly its right, or lack of same, to exist as a Jewish state.

That such a debate would raise passions to a boiling point on both sides is self-evident. For Israelis, the question goes to the very legitimacy of their state and to the history of the Zionist movement. More, it implies a question of whether it is morally justifiable to seek to destroy Israel by any means necessary.

For Palestinians, the question has two layers: one, acknowledging and recognizing that Zionism succeeded in establishing the Jewish state. The second layer implies a demand that Palestinians acknowledge that their dispossession was justified and legitimate. Most, though far from all, Palestinians can accept the first layer. But search as hard as you might and it is unlikely you’ll find more Palestinians than you can count with your fingers that can accept the second.

Such a vexing question is not asked about other countries. The “right” of the United States to exist was not questioned before, during or after the Americans and their colonial predecessors nearly wiped out the native population. The right of Lebanon, a country sliced out of Greater Syria with an arbitrary pen stroke on a map, or of Jordan, a country split apart from the rest of the British Mandate over Palestine, to exist is not similarly questioned. But Israel’s is. By the same token, those countries do not ask for their “right to exist” to be acknowledged, merely that their sovereignty be recognized and respected. But Israel does ask this. (more…)

My e-mail box has seen a great many messages in the past week calling for protest of the upcoming Middle East peace conference at Annapolis, MD. These have provided more evidence of how well the extreme right and left actually get along quite well despite disliking each other so intensely.

Americans for A Safe Israel is bringing its demonstrators to Annapolis. They essentially object to any settlement of the conflict that is not tantamount to a complete surrender on the part of the Palestinians and Arab states. They will be joined by the starkly Orwellian-named Shalom International, a Christian group that opposes any withdrawal by Israel from the Occupied Territories on religious grounds.

While no left-wing groups have, as of yet, announced any intention of physically protesting the conference, messages of protest from various small groups have been circulating. Most of these have been based on the point that the “Bush agenda” is being forwarded at the conference and therefore it should be opposed out of hand. Typically, alternatives are not presented nor, from my experience, even thought about for a moment.

Two liberal Jewish groups, Americans for Peace Now and Ameinu, have also announced that they plan to demonstrate in support of the conference.

In truth, this is much ado about nothing. The agenda for the conference has yet to be set, but the past few months have seen the Americans, Israelis and the Palestinian Authority all working overtime to tamp down expectations of this conference. And with good reason.

Before getting into that point, it needs to be stated that a conference of this type is not a negative development. There simply is no alternative to bringing the US, Israel, the Palestinians, the Arab League and the international community together to discuss the issues. The mere fact of such an event is a step in the right direction, although there can be some very negative fallout from it.

Unfortunately, the lessons of the two Camp David summits (the one that succeeded in 1978 and the one that failed in 2000) have been entirely ignored in this gathering. Even the modest goal of this conference, which is simply to restart negotiations on a final peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians, needs to be pursued under certain conditions. One of the key features that distinguished the Carter summit in 1978 from the Clinton version in 2000 was the position of the various leaders attending in terms of their own terms of office.

Jimmy Carter, Menachem Begin and Anwar Sadat were all secure leaders whose terms in office still had a lot of future to them. Despite passionate and politically significant opposition to their actions, all three leaders had strong bases of support both among the populace and in key political arenas in their respective countries. By contrast, the 2000 attendees were all on shaky ground. Bill Clinton was nearing the end of his presidency and desperately wanted a Mideast peace accord to overshadow what appeared to be his legacy of oral sex and impeachment. Ehud Barak’s coalition was falling apart amid sundry scandals and Hezbollah’s claim of victory and rise in stature in the wake of the withdrawal from Lebanon. And Yasir Arafat’s popularity was at an all-time low after the Oslo process had seen unprecedented settlement expansion and his administration was marked by autocracy, human rights abuses and corruption.

All the Camp David II leaders were desperate to redeem their reputations, but their needs diverged. Clinton needed a stable agreement. Barak needed to find a deal that allowed most of the settlers to stay in place, did not permit any return of refugees nor burdened Israel heavily in their compensation and did not diminish Jewish control over Jerusalem. Arafat desperately needed to show he was capable of standing up to the Americans and Israelis. These were obviously incompatible goals.

A similar situation takes hold now. George Bush’s presidency lies in ruins on the sands of Iraq. Ehud Olmert is facing a stream of scandals and the humiliating setback in Lebanon last summer has already been blamed on him. The upcoming release of the second Winograd report is said to put the blame squarely on Olmert’s shoulders for that war’s failures and he also bears the brunt of the botched withdrawal from Gaza and the constant flow of qassam rockets being fired at Israeli towns from there. The Palestinian leader, Mahmoud Abbas is the most different from his predecessor, but this only worsens the situation. Abbas has presided over a split that might be a death blow to the Palestinian national movement while achieving virtually nothing for residents of the West Bank. Unlike Arafat, he has very little respect among Palestinians and virtually no ability to persuade his people to accept painful compromises.

Both Olmert and Abbas are being confronted not only with strong opposition from their typical political opponents, Likud and Hamas respectively, but are also being opposed by members of their own governing coalitions. Various PA officials, including Fatah members, have not only expressed a lack of confidence in the conference, but some have even said that Abbas must make no concessions at the conference. Meanwhile, Olmert is daily attacked by right-wingers, led by Benjamin Netanyahu, but faces a much more daunting opponent in his own defense minister. Ehud Barak, attempting to position himself for a challenge to regain the Prime Minister’s office for himself, has consistently undermined Olmert and the conference. Barak goes even further, though. There is virtual unanimity that the best outcome of this conference will be the restarting of serious final status negotiations. It is “the day after” that really matters, and Barak is moving to quickly start the diminishment of electricity to Gaza on December 2, a move which will clearly stir the pot and make any follow-up negotiations much harder. Thus, Barak hopes to prove Olmert a failure and set himself up as the only “moderate” alternative to Netanyahu.

All of this speaks to the need to ripen conditions before the conference rather than convene it in haste. The gestures provided by both Olmert (granting some limited amnesty to Fatah fighters, freeing several hundred Palestinian prisoners and announcing a freeze on settlement construction and the dismantling of illegal outposts, although this last has thus far been no more than words and one outpost removal) and Abbas (the increased security presence in Nablus aimed at proving to Israel that the PA can maintain security)have done little to raise confidence on the respective other sides. Syria has received no indication that it’s claims would be given serious attention and is therefore declining its invitation to attend the conference (although it did cancel a parallel opposition conference). There is every reason why virtually everyone, left, right and center, expects nothing from this conference.

It need not be this way. It has always been the case that the nature of the conflict, the imbalance of power between Israel and the Palestinians, buttressed by Israel’s (largely correct, though somewhat decontextualized) view that the Palestinian issue is intertwined with its conflicts with more credible enemies in the larger Middle East as well as domestic constraints on both Israeli and Palestinian leaders limit the maneuvering ability of both parties. Strong leaders have shown themselves capable of pushing past some of these issues, but these have often been in service of obstructing, rather than promoting comprehensive settlements (this was true of both Yasir Arafat and Ariel Sharon, for example). The only thing that can bridge this gap is strong American intervention, using both carrot and stick. This has, in the past produced some significant shifts and motion, such as the Camp David I accord, the Madrid conference and recognition of the PLO. Many of these have been mixed blessings themselves, but none of them could have happened without American intervention. In fact, without strong American use of both carrot and stick, there is little chance any progress will be made, now or ever.

The current administration has proven completely inept on the few occasions it has even deigned to attempt diplomacy, in this or any arena. It is loathe to employ the carrot and its use of the stick is akin to a bull in a china shop. Still, for the next 14 months, this is what we have. And I disagree with those who believe this an insincere effort on Condoleezza Rice’s part; I grant that there is every reason to mistrust her, and that she has no real support from the Bush-Cheney White House, but her actions seem to indicate that she has realized, far too late, what must be done and is trying, within the limits imposed on her by her bosses, to do it.

Until the United States exerts real pressure on Israel to take down all the outposts and completely freeze settlement construction, while simultaneously both enhancing quality of life for Palestinian in all of the Occupied Territories and finding the correct balance of engagement and pressure to help the Abbas-Fayyad government stop the attacks on Israel from Gaza and establish a modicum of security on the chaotic territories, progress will be elusive and fleeting. Conditions must be improved so that both the Israeli and Palestinian publics have both hope for the future and a reason to endorse the sorts of compromises that the masses on both sides currently oppose. It is inconceivable that the Bush Administration could do this, even if it wanted to, which it obviously does not. But some of the building blocks for such a future can be laid at Annapolis and in the year that follows. This should be supported, not opposed, by all who care about either the Israelis or Palestinians, or both. And in the interim, it is crucial that those with a desire for resolution of this conflict and a realistic approach to it come together to create significant political pressure to make it happen.Recent events, such as the Ackerman-Boustany bill in Congress, show that when there is sufficient political pressure applied, even the vaunted and exaggerated “Israel Lobby” embodied in AIPAC will follow the political winds. But only if people more sensible than those in that organization make it happen.

Click here to read this piece at JVP’s Muzzlewatch blog.

The Israeli daily, Yediot Ahoronot reported recently that the Israeli intelligence agency, Mossad, had reassessed its view on Syria’s sincerity in seeking talks with Israel. Mossad now agrees with all the other branches of Israeli intelligence that the Syrian overtures are sincere and that Israel should put Syrian President Bashar al-Asad’s willingness to the test.

The potential benefits of an agreement between Syria and Israel are enormous for many parties. The United States is one of those parties, although one of the few players who stand to lose from such an agreement are the neoconservatives and hawks in the Bush administration. There are also real obstacles to an agreement, especially in the arenas of domestic politics in Israel and the US. But the chief factor blocking Israel-Syria talks at this time is the Bush Administration’s refusal to allow them. This is not something often talked about, which is not surprising–one can only picture the response of the overwhelming majority of Jews to the news that the US is blocking Israel-Arab peace talks that Israel desires.

Yet for all the difficulties, a deal with Syria is a lot easier to attain for Israel than one with the Palestinians, and it might have just as many, maybe even a few more, benefits for Israel as well as the region as a whole.

The Ground On Which To Build An Israel-Syria Agreement

To understand the potential benefits, we must first understand where we are now. The Middle East as a whole is engulfed in burning conflicts, simmering conflicts and growing potential for conflict. The ongoing bloodshed in Iraq and Sudan, the deepening tensions in Lebanon and growing concerns over increasingly tense situations in Bahrain, other Gulf states, Egypt and even to some extent, Saudi Arabia make this always explosive region all the more so. The fuse that is sitting too close to the flame is Israel and the Palestinian Territories.

Though not always reported, there are multiple, daily incidents of violence between Israelis and Palestinians in both Gaza and the West Bank as well as ongoing clashes between Fatah and Hamas as well as other Palestinian factions from time to time. Israel’s deepening of the infrastructure of the occupation makes matters worse. The wall continues to be built, Palestinian land continues to be appropriated and Israel continues to discuss its plans to hold onto various chunks of the West Bank and the Jordan Valley. Promised relief from checkpoints and settlement “outposts” has not materialized, echoing for Palestinians the Oslo years when Israeli promises of peace were accompanied by a massive acceleration in settlement expansion. (more…)

It’s pretty hard to argue that any movement for peace in Israel-Palestine has been successful. It’s obvious that the situation today is worse than it has been in a long time, perhaps ever, and little progress is visible on the horizon. But there is one thing that peace activists of all stripes on this question have proven themselves amazingly adept at–savaging one another.

The latest example is the cancellation of simultaneous concerts in Jericho and Tel Aviv that was to be a part of the “One Million Voices” campaign put on by the organization known as One Voice. The dual concerts were to be free, with participants being asked to add their signatures to the One Voice statement. This would not have been a requirement, but it was an obvious effort to help One Voice reach its goal of one million signatures on their statement (they have a little less than 600,000 at this time).

The One Voice platform is clearly a two-state one, and, while the group professes only to be pushing for negotiations, it’s clear that their stance is based on the sorts of agreements that are on the diplomatic table–the Clinton Parameters (which the group mentions in its own overview of their mission), the Taba talks, the Geneva Accords, etc. It is not surprising that many activist groups would disagree with this platform, as a growing trend in Israeli-Palestinian activism is to embrace a one-state solution, and even many who are not committed to that path bristle at these agreements as being insufficient.

But whether or not groups agree, the rhetoric employed all around on this issue has been terribly divisive. The status quo on an issue like this is always difficult to change, and the fact that various individuals and groups find it much easier to attack others working on a peace program, albeit a different one from what they would desire, only serves to strengthen the occupation and ensure that Palestinians will continue to live in misery, violence and dispossession while Israelis continue to live in perpetual fear. (more…)